From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER compile errors in v10+
In-reply-to: <20170921052928.GA188913@rfd.leadboat.com>
References: 
 <CAH2-WznnOrK=u-Ui2+vVk+-exMvAk9=nLbyaYVSmWCpAJ5en+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170921052928.GA188913@rfd.leadboat.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
	message dated "Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:29:28 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7962.1506001811.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:50:11 -0400
Message-ID: <7963.1506001811@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> Perhaps it is time to require HAVE_WCSTOMBS and HAVE_TOWLOWER, removing
> USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER?  Every buildfarm fossil has both.

+1 ... if nothing else, there's the problem that untested code is likely
to be broken.  You just proved it *is* broken, of course, but my point
is that even if we repaired the immediate damage we could have little
confidence in it staying fixed.

I think the USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER split was originally my code, so I'm
willing to take care of removing it if there's consensus that that's
what to do.

I'm not sure that we need to treat this as a v10 open item, though.
The premise of removing !USE_WIDE_UPPER_LOWER is that nobody cares
anymore, therefore it shouldn't matter to users whether we remove it in
v10.  There's an argument that having only two states of the relevant
code, not three, in the live back branches is worth something for
maintenance --- but should that outweigh the risk of breaking something
post-rc1?

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers